were the best bets to win. so anything can happen. but ever since hillary clinton made her move on same-sex marriage, it's been the political reality for both parties. that's "hardball" for now. thanks for being with us. "politics nation" with al sharpton starts right now. thanks, chris. and thanks to you for tuning in. tonight's lead, a more perfect union. a historical day at the supreme court. tackling one of the great civil rights issues of our time, marriage equality. huge crowds gathered outside as the court heard arguments on whether gay couples should have the same right to marry as anyone else. it's an issue that president obama helped bring to the forefront of our national debate. helping the country to evolve just like he evolved. this issue boils down to one simple thing. civil rights. equal rights.

we can't have equal rights for some, but not for others. justice scalia, the man who just a few weeks ago called voting a racial entitlement was exposed on this very point. >> when did it become unconstitutional to exclude homosexual couples from marriage? >> may i answer this in the form of a rhetorical question? when did it become unconstitutional to prohibit interracial marriages? >> these are easy questions to answer. it's never okay to discriminate. it's never okay to deny someone their civil rights. we as a nation are committed to forming a more perfect union. and the supreme court must honor that commitment. joining me now is jeffrey rosen, law professor at george washington university. and legal affairs editor at the new republic. and jonathan capehart, opinion

writer for "the washington post." first of all, thank you both for being here. >> thanks, reverend. >> thank you. >> jeffrey, let me start with you. in court today the lawyer supporting a ban on gay marriage claimed it's needed because the government wants straight couples to have kids. listen. >> the state's interest and society's interest in what we have framed as responsible procreation is -- is vital. >> responsible procreation? i mean, that's pretty bizarre. and even justice kagan demolishes that argument by asking if we should ban marriage for older couples, too. here's what she said. >> if you're over the age of 55, you don't help us, sir, if the government's interest in regulating procreation through marriage. so why is that different? >> your honor, even with respect to couples over the age of 55, it is very rare that both

couple -- both parties to the couple are infertile. and the traditional -- >> no, really. because if a couple -- i can just assure you if both the woman and the man are over the age of 55, there are not a lot of children coming out of that marriage. >> i mean, jeffrey, it is laughable. no question about it. i mean, responsible procreation? really? that's the best case they can make for banning gay marriage? >> you know, it may seem laughable, but it's the central argument on behalf of the state. the lawyer, charles cooper, said not only does the state have an interest in ensuring that couples have kids with each other responsibly, but they avoid having out of wedlock kids irresponsibly and don't act on animal passions. and basically was saying because gay couples who have kids have to do so deliberatetively, they've got to adopt or think

about the consequences of their actions in advance, they don't need the institution of marriage to get them back responsibly. it's only straight people who are really irresponsible. as justice kagan said, it doesn't make any sense. why on earth would you think that banning marriage for gay people would have any effect on the behavior of straight people responsibly or not? it really was a remarkable series of exchanges. >> i would have thought, jonathan, they would have come up with a better argument than that. are you suggesting, then, that straight couples that get married and don't have children haven't lived up to their obligations to the country? what are we saying here? this is bizarre? what does this have to do with people's right to marry. >> right. think about this. chief justice roberts, married, has two adopted children. imagine the chief justice sitting there listening to that conversation. is his marriage any less valid than any of the other -- say, justice scalia who has a ton of children? he and his wife have a ton of children. is his marriage less than

justice scalia's? i wouldn't say so. reverend sharpton, they're making this point, they're arguing this point because that's the only point, that's the only argument they have. and it is as thin as a hair. >> well, i mean, you mentioned chief justice roberts. he says gay couples just want the marriage label. listen to this. >> so it's just about -- it's just about the label in this case. >> the label is -- >> same-sex couples have every other right, it's just about the label. >> the label marriage means something. it is like you were to say you can vote, you can travel, but you may not be a citizen. there are certain labels in this country that are very, very critical. >> now, jeffrey, if it's just a label, then why are they saying that it violates the -- all of what marriage is supposed to be? you can't have it both ways. you can't say marriage is sacred but then -- and questioning it as the chief justice did it's

just a label, they just want the label. which is it? >> you're right to say you can't have it both ways. if it is just a label, why do straight people need it to behave responsibly? and if it's more than that, why shouldn't gay people get it, too? of course, it's not just a label. because tomorrow in an equally historic case, the supreme court's going to decide the constitutionality of the federal defense of marriage act. the there marriage is not a label. if you're not validly married, which gay people are not allowed to be for federal purposes, then your spouse cannot get benefits, tax benefits, can't live on a military base if your spouse is gay. so it may be a label in california, but it's not at all a label for federal purposes. that's why the analogy is not convincing. >> rev, on that point listening to chief justice roberts' questioning on that, that's something a lot of conservatives think. people who are, say, against marriage equality want to know, if you got -- if you have all the rights and benefits, because under california law same-sex couples do have that under domestic partnership, they just don't have the label marriage,

pushing ted olson on that question, to me, sounded like the chief justice was pushing him hard to see how strong is his argument? is olson's argument that the label is important. that it is so important that the court should jump in. >> now, you have a lot of support for it to be legal as opposed to before. 53% support. 39% oppose. you have justice scalia and kennedy offering different views about how gay marriage affects children. that was very interesting. listen to this. >> do you know the answer to that, whether it -- whether it harms or helps the child? >> no, your honor. there's -- >> but that's a possible deleterious effect, isn't it? >> there's some 40,000 children in california, according to the red brief, that live with same-sex parents. and they want their parents to

have full recognition and full status. the voice of those children is important. >> now, that -- the last one, the voice of those children is important, of course, is justice kennedy, who jeffrey here in his 2007 article about justice kennedy, potentially the swing vote on gay marriage, jeffrey says kennedy is the court's most activist judge. he thinks the court plays a more important role in american life than congress. >> mm-hmm. >> so in jeffrey's view, kennedy's statement is important, how do you read it? >> well, i found it very encouraging. justice scalia, the justice scalia clip you just showed had the judge up here in theory. where are the studies that show this is deleterious? whereas you have justice kennedy in the real world practical effects. he knows how many children there are in california with same-sex parents. he's definitely concerned about what happens to those children because they're with same-sex parents and the same-sex parents

aren't recognized as married under the law. what happens to those children if something happens to those par parents? he's thinking real world as opposed to theoretical. >> jeffrey, how do you view kennedy's questioning today? i quoted your article, which was not that favorable to the justice. but notwithstanding that, how do you view his questioning and his position today? >> well, that article was just meant to suggest it's rare that kennedy finds a problem in national life that he's not willing to consider on constitutional terms. and in that sense, i think the gay marriage side should be encouraged by kennedy's questions. because he got the central point in their brief. they said it doesn't make sense to deny marriage to gay couples because of children, because in california as in many states, gay couples can already adopt whether or not they're married. so these children exist. these are real parents with real children. and kennedy understood, you are demeaning them. you are denying them social acceptance in ways that could be

harmful to them. in other cases involving a woman's right to choose abortion, kennedy's been very concerned about the real world effect of these laws on women's dignity. the fact he's concerned about the dignity of children is very significant. >> help me out here, jonathan. justice alito comparing gay marriage to cell phones and the internet. let me let you listen to this. >> you want us to step in and render a decision based on an assessment of the effects of this institution which is newer than cell phones or the internet? we are not -- we do not have the ability to see the future. >> now, i mean, newer than cell phones or internet, i got that part. but if we are asking the court to step in in a relatively new kind of social challenge with same-sex marriage to those that are challenged by it, aren't people asking people to step in and stop it? so how do you judge not to do

it, but it's too early to say it's all right to do it? >> yeah. i'm still trying to wrap my head around the analogy that the justice used. i don't quite get what he's saying. look, the american people, 58% in the "washington post" poll, 58% of the american people are there. you have more than 130 republicans who signed an amicus brief in the prop 8 saying same-sex marriage should be legal. you have 51% of republicans, 18 to 45, who say same-sex marriage should be legal. the american people are already where the court should be. >> well, jeffrey rosen and jonathan capehart, thank you for your time. this is going to be a very important issue. i think the issue here is not whether you agree with same-sex marriage or not. the issue is, do we have the right to impose our views on others.

it was just 1967 before interracial marriage was found to be constitutional by this court. and now we have a justice sitting on the court engaged in one. it's not about what you're going to do with your life. it's can you impose it on others' lives. ahead, mr. racial entitlement has an offensive and vile history on gay rights. so how in the world can justice scalia be impartial? plus, president obama's progressive fight is working. and the campaign is just getting started. and you will not believe what a staffer is saying about michele bachmann. stay with us. my mother made the best toffee in the world.

it's delicious. so now we've turned her toffee into a business. my goal was to take an idea and make it happen. i'm janet long and i formed my toffee company through legalzoom. i never really thought i would make money doing what i love. [ robert ] we created legalzoom to help people start their business and launch their dreams. go to legalzoom.com today and make your business dream a reality. at legalzoom.com we put the law on your side.

have you joined the "politics nation" conversation on facebook yet? we hope you will. today, everyone was talking

about the republican senators paul and cruz and their threat to block gun restriction bills in the senate. larry says, they're not following the will of the people. sandi says, you do not have a right to block laws that the majority of our nation want. joan says, america has spoken and these guys are on the wrong side. she's right. and coming up, we'll explain why. first, we want to hear what you think. please head over to facebook and search politics nation. and like us to join the conversation that keeps going long after the show ends. ♪ [ male announcer ] a car has a rather small rear-view mirror, so we can occasionally glance back at where we've been. it has an enormous windshield so we can look ahead to where we are going. now is always the time to go forward. and reimagine all the possibilities that lie before us. an ally for real possibilities. aarp. find tools and guidance at aarp.org/possibilities.

by the armful? by the barrelful? the carful? how about...by the bowlful? campbell's soups give you nutrition, energy, and can help you keep a healthy weight. campbell's. it's amazing what soup can do. the day building a play set begins with a surprise twinge of back pain... and a choice. take up to 4 advil in a day or 2 aleve for all day relief. [ male announcer ] that's handy. ♪

these are critical days at the supreme court. in a term that will take on the most controversial issues of our time, rulings on gay marriage, on affirmative action and on voting rights. and at the center of all of it is this man, justice scalia. there's little doubt about how he'll vote on marriage equality. in a 1996 ruling, he equated homosexuality to murder, polygamy and cruelty to animals. during a 2003 case he compared it to prostitution, heroin use, adult incest and child pornography. and as late as last year, he argued, quote, if we cannot have moral feelings against homosexuality, can we have it against murder? his comments are offensive. and not just on gay marriage. here's what he had to say about the voting rights act.

>> a phenomenon that is called perpetuation of racial entitlement. whenever a society adopts racial entitlements, it is very difficult to get out of them through the normal political processes. >> that was in the court last month. voting rights as a racial entitlement? gay marriage compared to murder and bestiality? justices are supposed to be like umpires. calling balls and strikes. but scalia, he's not even in the right ballpark. joining me now, jimmy williams and david corn. thank you both for being on the show. >> sure thing. >> thank you. >> jimmy, let me go to you first. it doesn't seem like scalia is an impartial umpire, now, does it? >> no, reverend, no. he's not very impartial. out of the all the things that you just listed that he has compared homosexuality to as a certified, organic homosexual on

national tv, i have not done any of those things. i have a dog, but i've never had sex with my dog. because i'm normal. just like everybody else. and for that man to go around saying things like racial entitlement, bestiality, et cetera, et cetera, it's farcical. i wrote a column back in november -- back a couple weeks ago when he did this thing on racial entitlement. i said in the column i thought i was hearing a justice of the supreme court from the 1960s or from the 19th century. this is a man that is out of touch with reality by choice, by the way. he has no desire to make the constitution a living, breathing document that applies to today's america. and he's never going to. from the day that he steps off the court or dies on the court. that's just a reality. >> now, david, when you look at the fact that the justice -- well, let me quote from fox last year. he was interviewed. and he argued that, i don't think the court is political at all. this is scalia in a fox

interview. but despite that, he certainly had no problem parroting the right's talking points. take a listen. >> you define the market as food, therefore everybody's in the market. therefore, you can make people buy broccoli. >> if they can force us to buy health insurance, they can force us to buy broccoli. >> if we struck down nothing in this legislation but the -- what's it called? the cornhus kerr kickback. >> talk radio has been all over this. the cornhusker kick back. >> perpetuation of racial entitleme entitlement. >> the usa is becoming an entitlement society. >> what i wanted to show there in each of these cases, david, the talkers. whether it was limbaugh or hannity, used those phrases before scalia said them. of course, he's not political. he just coincidentally seems to parrot the same words and the

same analogies around the same issues. >> well, let me start off by actually saluting justice scalia. because as far as i saw today, he did not compare homosexuality to flag pole sitting, ped feel ya, bestiality, murder, raping or anything else. i think he was kind of restrained. which is a very unusual moment for justice scalia, given the high profile nature of this case. maybe some of the criticism he's gotten in the last few months is starting to get to him. but, you know, when you talk about -- >> also maybe he's waiting till tomorrow. it is another case. >> maybe he's saving the good ones for tomorrow. today was just the warmup session. if you talk about him being political, you know, the second half of what he said on that racial entitlement quote on the voting rights act case was one of the most political statements a justice has ever said. when you have a racial entitlement it becomes very hard to get rid of it. he wanted to say that -- the voting rights act was

reauthorized 98-0 in the senate. he suggested that it was up to the supreme court to rush in and do what the senators did not have the political guts to do. >> that's exactly what he said. >> to take away this entitlement. that, to me, was one of the most explicit statements of judicial activism we've ever heard on the court. i don't think there was enough attention paid to that because people were blown away by his characterization of it as a racial entitlement. >> now, talking about politics, jimmy, this could have big effect on politics. the national journal points out the decisions in this term of the court could have a big impact on the 2014 election. they say, quote, religious conservatives and african-american voters are ready to mobilize if same-sex marriage bans or racial equality laws are overturned. potentially reshaping the mid-term electorate. i think that's right.

if affirmative action and/or voting rights overturned african-americans will clearly have a real motivation to come out in big numbers in the mid-term. or on the other side of the aisle, the christian conservatives will come out if they overturn prop 8 or if they give constitutional right to gay marriage. this could really tip where we see turnout next year in the mid-term elections, jimmy. >> i think you're exactly right. but here's -- here's the thing about the republicans and conservatives specifically. is their base is ageing white men and women. specifically, more specifically, ageing white men. when it comes to the 2014 elections, we saw what happened last year when voter id laws across the nation were put out. and what happened? african-americans turned out in droves despite the fact that the press was reporting that they weren't going to show up as much the second time around. but they did. young people. exactly the same thing.

i would much, much rather be going into the 2014 elections with young people, people 30 and under, even conservatives 30 and under, who see if the court rules against us on the issue of marriage equality, against us on the voting rights act, against us on affirmative action, i would much rather see a motivated 30 and under crowd show up to vote than a bunch of people, you know, octogenarians and walkers like scalia who show up at the polls and get tired of waiting. young people will wait. >> they showed last year, david, they will stand there and wait and they did. and that determined the outcome of the election. >> that's right. >> well, yes. and the interesting thing here, too, is if you listen, i know you both have, to the -- the right wing attack on gay marriage, and, you know, that coming from republican quarters, it just doesn't seem to have the same pizzaz it used to. it's like they know they're fighting against the tide. they know they're losing this battle. you know, demographics alone

suggest they're going to lose it. and i just don't feel the same energy as you still get when you talk about the abortion issue. so i think, you know, while indeed there may be some people trying to gin this up for the 2014 elections, a lot of people in the republican party, you know, will not want to do that. and i think, you know, those people who turned out to vote back in 1994, you're right. they're with walkers, jimmy. they're not going to make it to the polls. now they're going to go, meh, who cares. it's not going to lead to a surge. >> i think you're right. i think also when people don't realize the importance of a vote, let's not forget the scalias, those that sit on the supreme court are selected by who we elect as president. your vote matters for a long time. jimmy williams and david corn, thank you for your time tonight. >> thank you. >> sure thing. ahead, the new right wing conspiracy theory on guns. wait till you hear who's calling

their bluff. plus, why president obama's winning the progressive fight by going on the offensive. stay with us. [ kitt ] you know what's impressive? a talking car. but i'll tell you what impresses me. a talking train. this ge locomotive can tell you exactly where it is, what it's carrying, while using less fuel. delivering whatever the world needs, when it needs it. ♪ after all, what's the point of talking if you don't have something important to say?

♪ ten hut! you up for the challenge suds-maker? i'm gonna need more than that to get through the rest of these dishes! i want more suds! dawn? you won't last. [ female announcer ] a drop of dawn has active suds that stay stronger longer, so you can clean 2x more greasy dishes. to get the job done. you're full of suds after all. now drop and give me twenty spaghetti bowls! [ female announcer ] dawn does more. [ sponge ] so it's not a chore. [ female announcer ] voa playground of innovation, n color, and design.

showing up where we least expect it and taking inspiration from our wildest dreams. because bold doesn't see the world in fixtures and faucets, it re-imagines. coloring our lives in ways only bold can do. it's no wonder the world can't wait to see what bold does next. boom. heart attack. the doctor recommends bayer aspirin to keep this from happening to me again. it's working. [ male announcer ] be sure to talk to your doctor before you begin an aspirin regimen. it can happen to anyone. talk to your doctor.

sfwlnchts coming to you now from an undisclosed location. welcome to a special covert edition of, nice try, but we got you. >> thank you, thank you. that's right. tonight, we're bringing you

exclusive footage from inside the right wing's latest mission. these are pictures of right wingers searching for their latest conspiracy theory. yes. they're looking for a new scary way to show gun laws will take away people's guns. it's a massive hunt. and despite the truth, if you look closely, you can see they've, indeed, found one. yes. they now say the department of homeland security is buying up bullets so regular citizens won't be able to get them. amazing, right? the fact is homeland security has explained, they're buying ammunition in bulk so they can get cheaper prices. but the crack pot cause is getting some hard hitting press attention. >> some of the conspiracy theorists online say this is our government buying up bullets to use against us. are you one of those who believes that?

>> well, you know, that might be reaching a little far at this point. we've asked the questions of dhs. >> oh, sure. just asking the questions. but i'm sure the reporter pushed him on his fact free paranoia, right? >> there's people, you know, making fun of it a little bit. you're using these words paranoia. i think these -- these are very appropriate for what we need to do. >> understood, sir. well, i appreciate you coming on. >> understood, sir. but there's more to this big and scary mystery. >> congress demanding answers as to why they need all those bullets. can someone answer, please? hello? >> won't someone please give them some answers? well, actually, someone did. >> dhs figures show that ammo purchases are actually lower than in years past. >> they haven't bought more ammunition than what they have in a long period of time. i think if you go through it

without fear and actually make a judgment, i think they're probably doing exactly what they need to do. >> that's right. that's republican senator tom coburn saying there was nothing to it. but he wasn't alone. >> sure. i mean, everything on that pans out. and i hate to disappoint the conspiracy theorists. they're going to have to come up with something new. >> i guess even the conspiracy theorists always have a home over at fox. did they think we wouldn't notice their peddling a story they already debunked? nice try. but we got you. [ justin ] mulligan sir. mulligan. take a mulligan. i took something for my sinuses, but i still have this cough. [ male announcer ] truth is, a lot of sinus products don't treat cough. they don't? [ male announcer ] nope, but alka seltzer plus severe sinus does it treats your worst sinus symptoms, plus that annoying cough. [ angry gibberish ] [ fake coughs ] sorry that was my fault sir. [ male announcer ] alka seltzer plus severe sinus. [ breathes deeply ] ♪ oh, what a relief it is!

[ male announcer ] try alka seltzer plus severe sinus day and night for complete relief from your worst sinus symptoms. i just stick the bar in the dryer like this, and it freshens my laundry for me so i don't have to think.

wait. what was the question? [ male announcer ] how do you get your bounce? [ man ] stick it and forget it. mom? who's mom? i'm the giants mascot. eat up! new jammin jerk chicken soup has tasty pieces of chicken with rice and beans. you know the giants don't have a mascot right mom? [ male announcer ] campbell's chunky soup. it fills you up right.

i have always believed that hope is that stubborn thing inside us that insists, despite all the evidence to the contrary, that something better awaits us. so long as we have the courage to keep reaching, to keep working, to keep fighting. >> the courage to keep fighting.

that's what the president is doing, and it's working. today, hundreds let their voices be heard out in front of the supreme court. support for gay marriage is at an all-time high. 58% of americans think it should be legal for same-sex couples to marry. it's not just same-sex marriage. support for immigration reform and gun reform is moving in the right direction as well. 72% of the country supports a pathway to citizenship. 88% support an expansion of background checks. president obama is hitting the trail again to sell his progressive vision to the country. he will traveling the country in the coming weeks to rally support for new gun control proposals. he hasn't lost sight of the vision he promised americans. >> our journey is not complete until our wives, our mothers, and daughters can earn a living equal to their efforts.

>> send me a comprehensive immigration reform bill in the next few months and i will sign it right away and america will be better for it. our journey is not complete until our gay brothers and sisters are treated like anyone else under the law. gabby giffords deserves a vote. the families of newtown deserve a vote. >> my fellow americans, we are made for this moment. and we will seize it so long as we seize it together. >> it's time to do something. and the country is ready. joining me now is congressman keith ellison, democrat from minnesota. he co-chairs the progressive caucus. thanks for being here, congressman. >> thank you, rev. >> you know, we've been seeing real evidence the country is progressive. why do you think we're seeing such a big shift? >> well, because the country really is progressive. americans are fair minded people who believe that people ought to live their lives as they choose

to. as long as they don't hurt anybody else. we believe that the economy ought to work for everybody. we believe that people ought to be able to pursue their dreams. you know, every time we stand up on the house floor in congress, we say the pledge of allegiance. and the way we end it up, reverend, is liberty and justice for all. everybody. and that is imbedded in who we are. >> now, you know, politico calls the shift in politics culture wars. with a twist. the quote is from politico, three issues. gay rights, guns and immigration climbed to national attention after surviving battle tests in states and enjoying a shift in public opinion. now washington is just playing catchup. very interesting, congressman. >> yeah. it is interesting. and i think it's accurate. i mean, the fact is, the american people are way ahead of congress on a lot of things. i mean, there was a recent poll

by gallup which said that 72% of all americans believe we should have public infrastructure spending. meaning our roads and our bridges and our transit lines, even a majority of republicans think so. yet we're in full-on austerity mode in washington. >> yeah. >> the public thinks we ought to raise the minimum wage. well, you know, in washington we're arguing, you know, whether minimum wage actually causes unemployment. which is ridiculous and untrue. but, i mean, the people are way ahead of washington. and the people really do deserve to have their will be reflected in their government. >> now, you know, one thing i observed in light of what you just said is the president keeps fighting, keeps going forward despite the opposition. and it's resonating with the american people. i suppose that the opposition for whatever reasons are not connected and understanding that what they're saying is just not working among the public when

they're opposing the president on some of these progressive ideas. >> well, my opinion is that folks like, you know, the coke brothers and karl rove and people who believe like that, they have a different vision of america. they believe that the rich don't have enough money and the poor have too much. they believe that we're not our brother's keeper. they believe that the environment is a thing you can use and use and use and never have to worry about. they think that, you know, not everybody's equal and not everybody has a fair shake at american life. they just see it differently. but the american people, the majority, the overwhelming majority, you know, believe that people should have a shot. the economy should work. and people should be able to marry who they're in love with. >> now, let me bring this note to you that is not harmonious with all of this. senator rand paul, ted cruz and mike lee hand delivered a letter to senator harry reid's office today. and it read, quote, we the

undersigned intend to oppose any legislation that would infringe on american people's constitutional right to bear arms. we will oppose the motion to proceed to any legislation that will serve as a vehicle for any additional gun restrictions. i mean, it means they want to filibuster gun control. that's what they're saying. they're going to filibuster gun control. >> yeah. >> i mean, what are they thinking? >> well, if you look at the heller decision with the supreme court, the supreme court said you cannot ban guns, privately owned guns in a private home. but other than that you can have reasonable restrictions. that means those three particular senators, they're the ones out of step with the constitution. the constitution does not prohibit reasonable gun safety. and it's what most americans want. and they -- you know, these folks in the nra like mr. la pierre keep on telling folks things that are not true, such as we want to take their guns

away. nobody's going to take your guns away unless you have some sort of weapon of war. if you have a regular gun and you're, you know, don't have a criminal background or are not mentally infirmed, you ought to be able to own one. those guys, they're the ones out of step, not the constitution. not harry reid. >> congressman keith ellison, thank you for your time. it's good to see the country moving forward. change does not come sometime quickly or in giant leaps. sometime it's step by step, in baby steps. as long as we're going in the right direction. >> right. ahead, the fight for civil rights at the supreme court. we'll look at a long road to justice and equality. and one of michele bachmann's long-time staffers is comparing her political fall to a belly flop. that's next. [ male announcer ] when you're at the corner of "multivitamin"

and "multiple choice," come to walgreens for help finding the one that's right for you... like centrum silver. now, buy one, get one half off with balance rewards card. at the corner of happy and healthy. for over 30 years. and it's now the most doctor recommended, the most preferred and the most studied. so when it comes to getting the most out of your multivitamin, the choice is clear. centrum. all your important legal matters in just minutes.

protect your family... and launch your dreams. at legalzoom.com we put the law on your side. prefer the taste of gevalia house blend over the taste of starbucks house blend? not that we like tooting our own horn but... ♪ toot toot. [ male announcer ] find gevalia in the coffee aisle or at gevalia.com the republican national committee say they want to reach out to minority voters. pledging to spend 10 million tlrs on the effort. but maybe republicans should just start by ending voter id laws that suppress millions of americans. today virginia governor bob mcdonnell signed a new strict voter id bill into law. it's the second major change to virginia voter requirements mcdonnell signed in just the last year. his fellow republicans insist the law is needed to strengthen

the integrity of elections in the state. but since 2000, there's been only one case of voter fraud that might have been stopped by an id requirement. just one. in arkansas the democratic governor vetoed a voter id law passed by the gop-controlled state legislature. but republicans are already looking forward to overriding the veto. republicans can say that they want to bring more minorities into their tent, but actions speak louder than words. smile. like other precious things that start off white, it yellows over time. when it comes to your smile, if you're not whitening, you're yellowing. crest whitestrips whiten as well as $500 professional treatments. guaranteed. crest 3d white whitestrips.

remember when michele bachmann was the toast of the gop? she founded the house tea party caucus in 2010. leading the tea party charge against obama care. in june of 2011, within hours, within weeks of announcing her candidacy for president, she was

surging to a primary lead in the polls. and by august, she had pulled off a win in the iowa straw poll. her campaign was running hot. but today bachmann's running from something else. reporters. her big speech at the conservative conference two weeks ago was riddled with errors and flat out made up. now we learn that she might be in the hot water with the office of congressional ethics. wow. look out. i see a fading star. joining me now, angela ryan, carolyn heldman. thank you both for being here tonight. >> thank you, rev. >> angela, one member of congresswoman bachmann's staff told the daily beast, quote, politics is like jumping off a diving board. you rise, you plateau. but at the end of the day, everyone comes down.

some people make a splash. and some people belly flopped. she belly flopped. and you don't get a second chance at the diving board. did it all catch up with the congresswoman? >> you know, rev, there's a whole lot going on here. with the office of congressional ethics, you know, she's not only in potential violations of the ethics rules of the house but also of federal election commission standards. if she has done any of what they've alleged, she's in a lot of trouble. the irony of this, rev, is that one of her spokesman has said that she is the subject of, you know, a democratic attack. by the dccc and democratic packs. that's not the case. the whistle blower here is one of her former staffers. >> besides the politics of this, she flunked real bad at cpac. let me put it this way. the daily beast reports, carolyn, that it's been time for bachmann since she quit her

presidential campaign. they list the tea party caucus she's helped found is now dormant. she's seen a 46% annual staff turnover rate. and politofact has called her statements out right lies and pants on fire than any other politicians. it seems like despite whatever these allegations are, whether they be true or not, politically it's like turned upsidedown for her. >> i would very much agree with you. i think an fac information, congressional ethics investigation and lawsuit from a former staffer are really hurting her. but she's been inflicting wounds on herself well before this. even last week we had bill o'reilly, right, defending president obama against michele bachmann's claim of lavish spending in the white house. she also said that the affordable care act was going to kill babies, elderly people and children. so i think it's a shame that i finally learned how to spell her

name. one l, two ns. i think she might be out of congress in her next race because she barely eked a win this past election. >> she barely eked a win. and what goes up must come down. let me show you, angela, some of ms. bachmann's greatest hits if she was a performer. >> i may not always get my words right. >> obama care as we know is the crown jewel of socialism. >> if you're involved in the gay and lesbian lifestyle, it's bondage. it is personal bondage. >> not all cultures are equal. not all values are equal. >> we have gangster government. >> i wish the american media would take a great look at the views of the people in congress and find out, are they pro-america or anti-america? >> the pulitzer prize winning website politifact has found you have the worse record of making false statements. >> we are extremely careful and we were almost mistake free. >> angela, i mean, it seems as

though way before these latest allegations, she had said some of the most outrageous things that even some of those on the right are saying this is too far and too bizarre for us to rally around. >> well, there's no question about it. politifact regularly questioned the veracity of michele bachmann's statements. there's no question about it there. i also think when you consider the fact she goes for ratings and hoorah over facts at any moment it's caused a major problem for her. you look at the fact she just tried to run a race. she couldn't handle the microscope. when they really dug down and looked into what michele bachmann was all about there were all kinds of problems. again, whether or not these new allegations are true or not, it's clear that she had a very tough time managing that campaign. from all of the stories, from the staffing reports, she had major problems. and even the potential questioning of, you know, asking staffers to sign what would be an illegal or just not -- an

unenforceable nondisclosure agreement based on some of the things they saw on the campaign trail. she's got her work cut out for her. i would advise her as a lawyer, she should probably lay carolin washington. is there something with her politics and rhetoric senator cruz should learn from in terms of things they should be saying and not saying? >> absolutely. i think that she represents the most extreme wing of the republican party. the tea party. and the tea party has lost favor with the american public. you know, two years ago a majority of americans had a favorable opinion. it's now 3 in 10. so they have -- the bloom is off the rose with the tea party. she represents the most extreme wing of it. and 53% of americans in a recent national poll think the republican party is too extreme. homophobia. racism directed at the white house. i think michelle obama epitomizes that.

>> ted cruz really has come on with some of the outrageous statements. i don't know if anyone that i've seen in the last month or so has been more outrageous. you better take notice that you can make a lot of noise and you make a bigger noise when you splash, belly first. angela rye and caroline heldman, thank you both for your time tonight. >> thanks, rev. >> thank you. the issue of civil rights. civil rights issue of our time is a fight, and change is hard. but the journey is inspiring. that's next. [ male announcer ] how do you measure happiness?

by the armful? by the barrelful? the carful? how about...by the bowlful? campbell's soups give you nutrition, energy, and can help you keep a healthy weight. campbell's. it's amazing what soup can do. otherworldly things. but there are some things i've never seen before. this ge jet engine can understand 5,000 data samples per second. which is good for business. because planes use less fuel, spend less time on the ground and more time in the air. suddenly, faraway places don't seem so...far away. ♪

omnipotent of opportunity. you know how to mix business... with business. and you...rent from national. because only national lets you choose any car in the aisle. and go. you can even take a full-size or above. and still pay the mid-size price. i could get used to this. [ male announcer ] yes, you could business pro. yes, you could. go national. go like a pro.

at his second inauguration, president obama reaffirmed our nation's commitment to equal rights for all.

>> we the people declare today that the most evident of truths that all of us are created equal is the star that guides us still. just as it guided our fore bearers through seneca falls and selma and stonewall. >> from seneca falls from selma to stonewall is why today matters so much. the supreme court arguments on same-sex marriage are an argument about civil rights. the rights of every man and woman. the rights we fought to gain and protect. we can't support equal rights for some, but deny those rights to others. the journey for equal rights extends far and wide. its path carves through new york and the stonewall riots of 1969 which gave birth to the gay rights movement. that same passion drove hundreds to wait in long lines for a chance to be in the courtroom today, waiting in the cold,

waiting in the rain, waiting in the snow. waiting because of what today represents. our nation is built for everyone. no matter who you are or who you love. 50 years ago interracial marriage was banned in large parts of the country. but one courageous couple, richard and mildred loving, believed we could do better. they fought for their marriage all the way to the supreme court. and they won. in 1967, the justices said bans on interracial marriage were unconstitutional. the lovings were inspired by the civil rights movement of the 1960s, a movement based on equality. today the desire for equal rights is as strong as ever. the desire to form a more perfect union. i've been challenged by friends. i've been challenged by members of the clergy. we must preach our doctrine. that's exactly what we cannot do is govby